Republicans on the House Natural Resources Committee are demanding answers from Interior Secretary Ken Salazar about leaked emails showing that the administration lacked scientific justification for blocking uranium mining on one million acres of previously designated federal lands in Arizona.

The emails between National Park Service (NPS) officials include statements such as “my personal and professional opinion is that the potential impacts stated in the DEIS as [sic] grossly overestimated and even then they are minor to negligible” and “there exists no information we could find that would [suggest] how contamination of park waters might physically occur.” DEIS stands for Draft Environmental Impact Statement, being discussed in the emails by hydrologists.

“The DEIS goes to great lengths in an attempt to establish impacts to water resources from uranium mining. It fails to do so, but instead creates enough confusion and obfuscation of hydrogeologic principles to create the illusion that there could be adverse impacts if uranium mining occurred,” states another email.

The Interior Department announced the 20-year ban on Jan. 9, negating a compromise that had been previously worked out between mining companies and environmental groups. The administration cited the protection of drinking water sources as the reason.

“This is obviously a touchy case where the hard science doesn’t strongly support a policy position,” another email says. “Probably the best way to ‘finesse’ this would be fall back on the ‘precautionary principle’ and take the position that in absence of even more complete certainty that there is no connection between uranium mines and regional ground water, we need to be cautions [sic]??”

Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) and Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), chairman of the subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, fired off a letter to Salazar today over the “legitimate concern that the Obama Administration has elevated politics over sound science by initiating and taking this action.”

The committee requested all correspondence between the then-superintendent of Grand Canyon National Park and the director of the Grand Canyon National Park Science Center back in April 2009, but nearly 400 pages were withheld “under FOIA’s deliberative process exemption.”

“As FOIA section (d) prohibits using FOIA exemptions to withhold information from Congress, we request the Department provide by June 1, 2012 complete and unredacted copies of the previously withheld 399 pages,” the congressman wrote.

They also asked Salazar to turn over by June 11 all documentation surrounding the decision to block the uranium mining, including memos and correspondence from the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the U.S. Geological Survey.

The chairmen included a two-page-plus addendum detailing instructions and definitions for what should be turned over to the committee and how.

“I am concerned and troubled by the Department of Interior’s decision to proceed with the ban despite the fact their own experts cautioned that scientific evidence was lacking. It is now increasingly apparent that the decision was motivated by politics rather than science as the Administration would have us believe. We feared this was the case when the DOI announced its intentions in January, and it is unfortunate that it has proven to be true,” Bishop said in a statement.

“These emails illustrate that Secretary Salazar blatantly ignored the scientific analysis in order to advance the Administration’s narrow-minded political agenda. The Administration is working hard to protect certain interests, but just not those of the American people,” he added.

The uranium withdrawn from production represents 40 percent of domestic uranium resources; the deposits contain the highest-grade uranium existing in the U.S. Bishop’s office noted a report from the American Clean Energy Resources Trust saying that a ban on mining in this region could impact as many as 1,000 jobs and more than $29 million in economic revenue.

Bridget Johnson is a veteran journalist whose news articles and opinion columns have run in dozens of news outlets across the globe. Bridget first came to Washington to be online editor at The Hill, where she wrote The World from The Hill column on foreign policy. Previously she was an opinion writer and editorial board member at the Rocky Mountain News and nation/world news columnist at the Los Angeles Daily News.
She is an NPR contributor and has contributed to USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, Politico and more, and has myriad television and radio credits as a commentator. Bridget is Washington Editor for PJ Media.

Click here to view the 33 legacy comments

Click here to hide legacy comments

33 Comments, 17 Threads

1.
rbj

More important than ever to get Dear Liar out of the White House. Even if the GOP takes back the Senate, Congress has ceded so much power to the executive branch that it won’t be able to stop all the new regulations (and there isn’t going to be a 2/3 majority in both houses to override The Whine’s vetos.)

In the ends that is one of the great tragedies of the modern environmental movement. By inventing fake disasters they both destroy the resources needed to deal with the real problems, and make it far likelier that the real disasters will be missed in the teapot tempest.

The entire environmentalist movement is based on the “precautionary principle.” If something might hurt the environment, they must assume that it will hurt the environment. Never mind finding out how great the risk really is or studying ways to mitigate the impact short of an outright ban on human activity.

“These emails illustrate that Secretary Salazar blatantly ignored the scientific analysis in order to advance the Administration’s narrow-minded political agenda. The Administration is working hard to protect certain interests, but just not those of the American people,” he added.

You think ?

Isn’t interior sec’y Salazar the guy who left for his Colorado vacation immediately after the well blew in the Gulf ? Has struck me as a self-serving agendist for the duration, like most, if not all, Obama appointees.

And yet another reason the federal government should not own land (other than federal facilities/buildings). The states are better equipped to decide how/when to exploit the natural resources within their borders.

I have no problem with the principle of the Federal government owning land. I do think there should be more limits on how much land it can own, what it can use the land for, and whether states have priority over ownership and use. Observe the City of Tombstone, AZ. They want to replace the old water pipeline from the city to some springs located on federal land. The feds won’t let them do it – too much environmental impact. They can make do with the old pipe which has been there for a hundred years or so. That kind of thing – the all-powerful Government stomping on a small town – is wrong.

There are rather specific limits on what the federal government can own land and use it for. Owning land for national parks, animal preserves, etc is not on that list. If there’s no government buildings there, they have no Constitutional reason to own the land, or exercise authority over it (the EPA telling people what they can and cannot do with their own property for example).

Article I, Section 8, Clause 17;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings

This is example No 12,394 of our regulatory system run a muck due to the precautionary principle. It is the favorite of the bureaucracies. The essence is that they do not have to work hard, do science, they just have to exercise their particular prejudice. “Do nothing lest you might be criticized for possibly doing something which might allow some dirty businessman to make money.” This is the foundation of a career going to meetings, and reading the paper, which produces nothing.

How do you argue against the precautionary philosophy? You look at history. The pope had a different view than King Henry VII on a cautious approach to marriage. King Henry’s wives had a altogether different viewpoint on his cautious conduct. Democrats have a different view than Republicans on waging a cautious war,

Our problem is that decision makers, like Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, will make wholly different decisions than a Republican secretary. His bureaucrats will stay on after he leaves, and all will be paid a nice retirement plan. But the people whose livelihoods are destroyed by these back room decisions are never heard from, even if they know more about uranium mining than any one on earth. The expertise of the private sector is frozen out of the decision making process, or offered the regulator’s dictum, “Prove me wrong.” The experts then tell their kids, “Forget technologies like uranium mining; it broke me”. After two generations, the US loses experts; they drive cabs, or sell real estate. And they listen to the likes of Ken Salazar, with extreme caution.

I hope the Reublicans or the anti-obamists or whatever they are calling themselves now can reach a decision not to screw thiings up, hire an excellent PR firm and plan a great publicity campaign using this and all the the information comuing out about all the dirty tricks pulled by the Obama administration. Republicans always seem to be a step behind them and getting the short end. They seem so darned stupid. They don’t even know enough to keep some of their 2 century old ideas quiet. Every time I see Reid, I remember how the Tea Party enabled reelection of that man. A Young Republican, calling for a donation to help fund their trip to Nevada to support Angle, didn’t flinch at all when ai said she was a loser and they should stop their support. He went on his merry way, continung to ask for money for that trip until he got my customary loud hang up in answer.

Reps. Hastings and Bishop would have more credibility if they became advocates for the taxpayer along with being shills for the mining industry. Unlike the energy industry, hard rock mining operations can patent claims for pennies on the dollar and then pay no royalties to the taxpayer; i.e., the US Treasury. This happens because the Mining Act of 1872 still governs mining operations on the federal public lands in the West.

In a time of trillion dollar deficits in Washington, this type of corporate subsidy is no longer appropriate.

Mining patents are no longr issued or approved by the US government and have not been for years. Your claims are false. Mining company do pay maintenance fees on their claims. These fee maintain the claimant’s right to perfect discovery of minerals and establish a valid claim. All mining is done with reclamation bonds that cover the complete cash clean up of the mine or exploration project should the claimant not be able to do so when required. Long gone are the days when miners could muck up the environment and walk away.

Exploration companies pay the maintenance fee on cumulatively large tracts of land that will never see mining and little exploration and thus pad the federal government bank account. In Northen Arizona, the exploration companies paid over 2 million dollars each year to hold their mining claims in good standing. Most of that land saw very little impact fom exploration at any given time. Two million bucks seems like a pretty good pay day for accepting some paperwork each year.

Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) and Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), chairman of the subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, have “legitimate concern that the Obama Administration has elevated politics over sound science by initiating and taking this action.”

Wow, that’s really rich, Republicans arguing that “politics” has trumped “science”!! Who said irony is dead?

I’ll repeat, in different words so you can understand. You want uranium mining in Arizona? Fine with me, if reasonable environmental safeguards are present; and if the taxpayers get paid for what is being taken out of THEIR public lands.

AND, StevenB, if taxpayers don’t have to pay to clean up the environment when the mining is finished. Mining in the west is still governed by laws from the 1870′s where the miners pay a ridiculously small amount for the land, keep most of the profits, and leave the mess for the taxpayers to clean up.

Hey, it’s the American “FREE-enterprise” system at work, the kind of enterprise that Republicans love to support.

You and SteveB just dont get it, do you?
The “taxpayer” will pay one way or another, either up front in
higher costs if the miners are forced to operate cleanly and
clean up any residual messiness, or later via taxation. The exception
might be if the land is deemed too remote and otherwise unservicable,
so that nobody will care about or even notice the mess. Businesses
will always include such up front regulatory demands in their
business’ costs. Always. So, the question needing an answer must be
do we need the mineral and from which parcel of land might it be
extracted with the least inconvenience and least potential E-impact,
given our current state of science and technical capability. All else
is speculation and/or wishful thinking the EPA is not likely to be
better at than established mining companies and free markets. Meaning,
in sum, the Gov. is not likely to make better decisions than the private
sector. Proof just had is that even the responsible gov. agency came to
realize that its proceeding would be ideologically driven in blatant
disregard of any facts. (Unfortunately, we the taxpayers are required
to pay them for this crap. Thus, they need to be fired. QED.)

What you leave out of your analysis are intangible costs to the environment of serious, long-term damage. It’s hard to measure what the loss of access to parts of the Grand Canyon might be if something goes wrong (think the Macando Well and the Gulf of Mexico or Chernoble in the Russia). Sometimes other values need to be considered.

That may be what’s happening in this case but in a back-door way. The EI statement may not have any place to weigh in on the bigger picture of possible impact to a national treasure and the tourist industry it supports.

Not every last parcel of our land needs to be turned over to private enterprise to exploit.

Curiosity question for Roger: do you live in the West; specifically, the Intermountain West? Tourism & outdoor recreation; hunting & fishing; are big business here in the West. Few if any lands would be considered these days as being “too remote and otherwise unservicable.”

Overall, the energy industry’s record for clean-up and respect for private property of others is decent. Reasonable regulations have helped. However, I can show you dozens of streams just in Colorado where the water can’t even be treated for drinking due to the heavy metals in the flow from historic and more recent mining. Ever hear of Summitville, as just one recent example?

If you haven’t been a participant in hearings as I have, then how would you know if the gov. is less likely to make better decisions than the private sector? And how would you know that proceedings would be ideologically driven?

some interesting and good comments and some just spinning their wheels.I have a different take on this that has not been touched on. We will start with this which is all to prevalent.

Pr 28:21 ¶ To have respect of persons is not good: for for a piece of bread that man will transgress.

some interesting and good comments and some just spinning their wheels.I have a different take on this that has not been touched on. We will start with this which is all to prevalent.

Pr 28:21 ¶ To have respect of persons is not good: for for a piece of bread that man will transgress.

Note it says WILL not may transgess and we see that demonstrated day after day.Jehoshaphat set Judges over the land of Judah with these instructions.

2Ch 19:7 Wherefore now let the fear of the LORD be upon you; take heed and do it: for there is no iniquity with the LORD our God, nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts.

Now is you have to cross the creek on a skinny pole you have a choice of falling off the right or the left side of that log if you lose your balance. Doesn’t really matter for the creek is just as cold and wet on the one side as it is on the other. Lets take a full look at the environment. We need to keep it in good operational condition just like your immune system. We cannot make it sterile without damaging our immune system. We cannot let it shut down our commerce or we have nothing to live on so we work with it to have the best of both worlds We cannot carry on commerce without generating pollution but we can keep it in check. What good is a clean environment if you have no food? These environmentalists are determined to shut down our commerce which is to cut off our food supply. We have been blind to the deleterious effect of our environmental strategy not realizing that if we cut off our coal and oil energy we will shut down our power grid and cause a much greater disaster than a little sustainable pollution ever would. (could this be the agenda and strategy behind the environmentalists?)

Now it has come to my attention that certain birds landed in an oil field sludge pit and the oil company was severely fined yet our wind turbins can kill our protected golden and bald eagles with impunity. If we can fine the oil companies why can’t we also apply the same law with the same severity to the wind turbines. That is what my verses refer to as respect of persons. We cannot make our environmental concerns all powerful on the one hand and not suffer severe damage on the other hand. There are always limiting factors whether it is pollution or the limiting of pollution. The law is a fence but nature is free range yet herds have their “Property.” There are no hard and fast land lines but herds don’t stray much off their range. We cannot ignore our environment and wildlife, neither can we be overly restrictive without nature taking correctional steps.
Then welook at JE